> I brought it up in the context of (look back to see) that investors would not be able to easily determine the future demand for authors in pricing degrees in english/creative writing. Without an ability to determine future demand, how would you price it?
True, my apologies.
It's quite easy to see that only a certain amount of people can consume art, and only a certain level of artists are strong enough in arts to gain a loyal following. Therefore, I would only make loans to students who showed a high aptitude for art. Or, other students that decided to work in other forms of media (photography, advertising, film production, etc.)
As part of a 'risk-portfolio,' every investor has risky investments, and non-risky investments. Risk depends on what the investor thinks. That's how you come up with prices, which is much better than the Government just saying "Here's $40,000/year for art classes. If you can't pay it back, we'll garnish your wages as a barrista forever."
> The idea that the arts is not as easily quantifiable was a premise for undermining your suggestion of private market investment in degrees.
Then if it's unpredictable, why should tax-payers be forced by government to pay for it?
> Therefore, your comment about Ray Bradbury, for example, actually further undermines your point about individuals investing in degrees in the liberal arts because it makes it even less certain what the value of the writing degree/liberal arts degree is. And makes investors much less likely to be able to predict accurately.
Not true: it only undermines the idea of requiring college to become successful. In this case, there would be no loans, and thus no investors, and people would go to libraries for (practically) free instead of going to College. Or, students could buy a set of books like The Great Books of the Western World for a few hundred dollars and educate themselves. No College, no debt, and success. Sounds like a win-win to me (for everyone except for the Government, Banks, Wall St., and tenured College Professors).
> You're talking about long-term projections with little certainty. With longer horizons and less certainty, prices will less accurately reflect their future actual value.
True. Which is why most people shouldn't take out so much debt to begin with, since the future is so uncertain, which is why the Government shouldn't be backing loans and making the prices go up so much.
And, back to my previous question that you didn't answer:
> What's your solution? Do the same things? $2 Trillion in student loan debt?